Eric Corbett made a comment on his talk page that could be construed as violating his GGTF tban [1]. A discussion took place at WP:AE, and admin Black Kite closed the discussion as no action per consensus. GorillaWarfare who was aware of the discussion at AE, wheel-warred by reverting Black Kite's actions by blocking Eric Corbett. This has been discussed at WP:AN, but wheel-warring allegations are to be brought directly to ArbCom. The specific points that appear to be violations are:

Deliberately ignoring an existing discussion in favor of a unilateral preferred action, and
Abruptly undoing administrator actions without consultation

GorillaWarfare admitted that she was aware of the existing discussion and AE close here [2].

Black Kite stated that his administrator action in closing the AE without action was undone without consultation here [3].

It is clear that Eric Corbett could have been blocked for a tban, whether he was blocked or not is not the issue in this case. The issue is whether an ArbCom member/admin can unilaterally take their preferred action after deliberately ignoring an AE discussion, and abruptly undoing another admin's no-block close of that AE discussion without consulting either with him or others. GregJackP Boomer! 04:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23, I would agree, except that the admin instructions clearly state that administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy. Here, GW reversed in substance an action taken by BK pursuant to AE. GregJackP Boomer! 04:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand but disagree. See [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and so on. GregJackP Boomer! 05:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf, I don't have a problem if this is changed to a motion for clarification, although I believe that GW's actions were clearly inappropriate, at the least the issue at AE needs further definition, see [11].

As to the numerous comments on whether this should be rejected or not, I'll leave that to the judgment of the committee members. I obviously think that it needs to be addressed. GregJackP Boomer! 16:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncmvocalist: I concur with his comments, and he was much more articulate and clear than I have been. GregJackP Boomer! 17:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, this needs to be clarified: two well respected admins, Jehochman and Kevin Gorman have opposing views. See [12] and [13]. Only one of them can be correct. It is better to determine that here, rather than in countless debates at other locations. GregJackP Boomer! 22:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GorillaWarfare

I have yet to hear from anyone who feels that Eric Corbett did not violate his topic ban.

Whether the closure of the AE discussion was legitimate seems to be somewhat up for debate. Whether the closure of a discussion at AE constitutes an "admin action" should certainly be clarified. Whether my action was wheel warring against a consensus at WP:AE is up to others to decide, but I've yet to see anyone who feels the discussion at AE was complete or representative of the issue at hand. I enforced sanctions that Eric Corbett unequivocally breached, and I've yet to see anyone deny that he breached the sanctions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

Right, firstly, the title of this case is misleading. GW did not wheel-war under the definition, she simply - at worst - reversed my decision to take no action. This is why I posted at AN, as there seems to be a paradox under the AE rules. If an administrator blocks someone under AE, they cannot be reversed by another admin without a community discussion. However if an administrator declines to block someone under an AE case, they can then be blocked anyway - as has happened here. This to me seems illogical. However, it is something that should be discussed somewhere other than an ArbCom case, unless ArbCom wish to take it to issue clarification on the issue. Black Kite (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved Reaper Eternal

I stand by my close, which I'll copy here for your pleasure:

Urgh, this is a mess. My reading of consensus is that there is a leaning that GorillaWarfare's block was a bit out of process, given that Black Kite had already closed the WP:AE report as "no action taken". There is definitely no consensus here for a block; indeed, the results seem to show a slight consensus in favor of unblocking. A pure vote count shows a 60/40 split in favor of unblocking.
Wikipedia's blocking policy is designed such that the default state for editors is unblocked, and thus, given the lack of consensus for Eric Corbett's block, I am unblocking him now. It is unfair to let editors languish blocked because people cannot agree on the appropriate sanctions, thus leaving the most severe sanction implemented in effect.
I would like to encourage GorillaWarfare to pay more attention to consensus and the prior decisions of other admins at various noticeboards before taking unilateral action.
On a similar note, I would like to request that the accusations of "involved blocks" and "wheel warring" stop. GorillaWarfare did not wheel war, since a reversal of a previous admin action is not wheel warring. (The first potential "wheel warring" action would be my unblock, except that I am taking action based on the [lack of] consensus here.) Additionally, no evidence has been shown that she is involved with Eric in a non-admin case. Voting to ban in an arbitration motion is an admin (well, arbitrator) action.
I would like to advise Eric Corbett to take what some of the voters here have mentioned to heart and recognize that he is indeed topic-banned from WP:GGTF. The consensus seems to be that the potential violation was of insignificant magnitude, not that no violation occurred. Nothing good is coming of publicly complaining about the GGTF mailing list.
Finally, to the admin who said on IRC (in a burst of anger, not seriously) that he would like to give Eric a bath in hydroflouric acid, do not repeat anything of the kind, on wiki or IRC, or I will block you for a significant period of time. You know who you are. It is not appropriate, and is indeed way worse than someone bitching about a post on a mailing list and potentially violating a topic ban. If I see any more comments of a similar sort from anybody referring to anyone, I will hand out blocks without further warning.
I am not covering the other topics mentioned here; namely, whether or not to close the WP:AE board or whether to limit arbitrators from taking action on WP:AE. I would like to encourage the proposers to perhaps wait several days to a week for hot tempers to die down before re-proposing their proposals. Furthermore, such proposals belong on the idea lab village pump if you are trying to clarify your proposal or the policy village pump if you are ready to make your proposal. Additionally, such significant changes would need to be advertised on the centralized discussion template so more than just the AN/I crowd can weigh in.
Thanks to all of you all for your time. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

My opinion and reading of consensus stands: GorillaWarfare did not wheel war, and neither did I, since my actions were based off the community's decision. Furthermore, the process of appealing arbitration enforcement blocks was, largely, followed. Yes, the letter of the law may have been slightly broken (request not filed by Eric himself), but the spirit was not. I regularly unblock editors who misfile their unblock requests, since the purpose of the unblocking policy is to get editors unblocked. It is not an end in itself. It is merely one of many means to an end.

I would like to re-iterate what I hinted at above in my close. The blocking policy is designed such that the default state for any editor is unblocked. This is why reversals of admin actions are permitted while re-reversals are not, so that users are not stuck blocked while everyone has a big argument over the merits of the block. The spirit of the blocking policy was not being followed in this case because Eric was being left blocked while deliberations were ongoing. This is not a fair scenario. Either appropriate sanctions supported by consensus must be placed, or else Eric needs to be unblocked. It was clear from the administrators' noticeboard discussion that there was definitely no consensus to block, and, indeed, there was a slight consensus to unblock. For that reason, I unblocked Eric.

Several people have been trying to point out to me that arbitration enforcement blocks cannot be overturned. However, when they fly in the face of consensus, they can be overturned. This was the case. Otherwise, any arbitration enforcement blocks are absolute, and the admin placing them has absolute power over them. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Finally, Courcelles can make blanket claims until the stars fall, but the Arbitration Committee cannot override the blocking policy as implemented by the community. Yes, I was aware of this when I closed, and yes, I was aware of what potential consequences that Courcelles, and by extension, the Arbitration Committee, might seek for my crime of lèse-majesté. I thought it through, and then I made my decision: I am an admin to enforce the will of the community and to remove unwanted editors like vandals and sockpuppets. Accordingly, I followed the blocking policy as implemented by the community and unblocked Eric Corbett. I am not an administrator to serve as the Arbitration Committee's hired thug—by that I mean that I will not bow to blanket demands by arbitrators that run afoul of the spirit of the policies and guidelines the community has implemented and that have served us well over the years. If the Arbitration Committee thinks that this makes me unacceptable as an admin and wants to prevent dissidence, so be it. If they want to make themselves the Supreme Dictators^TM of Wikipedia, there is little I or any other admin can do to stop them. I can't fight the GovCom. I elected ArbCom to resolve disputes, not to boss everyone around.

I am of the belief that one should do what is right, regardless of any potential personal loss. And thus, I have acted. And thus, I will be judged. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eric Corbett

Statement by Bbb23

Assuming for the sake of argument that Black Kite's closure with no action was an administrative action, GorillaWarfare's block was not wheel warring. It was simply a "reversal" of another administrator's action. If a third administrator - or Black Kite - had undone GorillaWarfare's block, that would have been wheel warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GregJackP: I'm not going to spend much time on this. Enough time has already been spent at WP:AN. However, your quote has nothing to do with wheel warring. Equally important, that particular provision is generally applied when an administrator blocks an editor for violating an arbitration decision and another administrator unblocks the editor without the required consensus. I can't speak for all time as I don't have the historical reach of many, but I have never heard it being applied when an administrator decides no action is warranted against an editor and another administrator blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

I commented to the filer on his talk page, but I believe while it could be seen by the community as a wheel war type action, the discussion so far has been of the nature of a procedural or administrative faux pas rather than a wheel war. I believe there's consensus on that. I recommended he work to argue the case that it came under wheel war on the respective noticeboards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

I think it is wheel warring, but I don't think there was malice as much as a lack of clarity in policy, so I wouldn't ask for sanctions, only clarification. Only an admin can close an AE discussion, so it DOES require the tools to do this, even if not literally. Had she reverted the closing to allow more discussion, there wouldn't be much controversy at all, but instead, she essentially reverted an admin decision at AE (a "no block"), using the most powerful of admin tools we have, the block button. If closing wasn't an "admin action", we wouldn't require the tools to do it. Saying "admin action" is only when we literally push a button is an unnecessarily rigid read of policy.

Additionally, there is the question of whether Arbs should use the block tool to enforce sanctions they themselves put in place. I don't think it should be barred, but it should be a last resort, not a first option, particularly in a case like this where it is very arguable that WP:INVOLVED is an issue. As there was no immediate threat, it was unnecessary and ended up causing a tremendous amount of drama that could easily been avoided, thus obviously, NOT best practice. For these reasons, Arb should take the case, as there is no other venue to decide these issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbs: While traditionally "wheel warring" requires three actions, Arb enforcement doesn't allow a second action, so this may not technically fit the definition, the end result is the same. We don't have a term to describe an admin overturning an admin action out of process with only two moves. "Wheel warring" is the closest analogy we have, which is why it is being used, as it is equally improper and forbidden in both circumstances. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The ed17

Comments from friends of the editor notwithstanding, this was a clear-cut violation of a sanction the Arbitration Committee placed. He tested the limits of it and was rightfully blocked. Arbcom can either assert that they have the authority to enforce their decisions or let it continue to slip away. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick-D

This obviously wasn't wheel warring as defined at WP:WHEEL given that GW took an action which was contrary to that of Black Kite, and didn't "repeat a reversed administrative action" as is required to violate that policy. As such, there are no grounds for an arbitration case there. I'll leave the interpretation of the wording at WP:AE to editors more familiar with its history, but the context for the motion suggests it refers to blocks, etc, being overturned rather than the closure of discussion threads with a decision to take no action - especially in the case of bright line topic bans. I'd note that several editors have also raised serious concerns around Black Kite's closure of the AE thread in the discussion at WP:AN, which should also be taken into account if a case was opened here (especially given the history of admins giving Eric lots and lots of chances for behaviour which typically leads to sanctions, often involving overly-hasty actions). I don't think that an arbitration case is warranted, as this request is seriously premature given that the discussion at WP:AN remains under way (with what looks to be fairly broad support for GW's action) and focusing on the niceties of process at AE seems pointless at best. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by peripherally involved Ritchie333

I think enough custard pies have been thrown at GorillaWarfare for now, I am happy the case title has been changed and I don't believe wheel warring by the definition there took place. That said, there are some underlying issues that should be looked at with conduct in Arbitration Enforcement. Also, the latest AN thread proves the community is completely and utterly incapable of managing Eric Corbett, and any sanctions against him result in a huge amount of disruption from third parties.

I think there is merit in revisiting the scope of the GGTF topic ban and restricting it to the Gender Gap Task Force as an on-wiki group only. Saying "I am offended by a workshop tackling inter-gender relationships at the next Wikimania" is civil, attacks no person and is fair comment, but that's what's got Eric a month off. Everyone says "yes, Eric violated the ban", nobody has said if the terms of the ban are actually sensible in hindsight and why they're required. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kudpung

Clearly Eric's statement was an infringement of AE and I don't see anyone really disputing it. The AE discussion hinged more on that it was a possible case of unnecessary harrassment of Corbett. In normal circumstances, such repeated indiscretion is met with escalating periods of blocking which don't even necessarily need an AE discussion; this only being out of the ordinary because it concerns Eric Corbett. The discussion wasn't given time to develop (certainly not for some of us in geographical opposite time zones) before it was closed and unless I have missed something, there was no actual formal closing statement. One admin overturning another without discussion is possibly inappropriate but whether this is a case of wheelwarring per WP:WHEEL needs clarification. I think there is no way out of this without some proper arbitration to clarify the rules, but without sanctions being applied to any of the involved admins. I recommend that the committee take the case because IMO such a situation is likely to occur again, and the community needs to be spared discussions ad nauseam. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's just been pointed out to me on my tp that there was in fact a closure that was't there at the time I looked. I still maintain however that the discussion was closed prematurely and that it therefore might not have been representative of a consensus that could have developed with more time and time for people in other time zones to wake up and then find out about it and navigate to it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

In the real world when we have these type of fuck ups we usually see a resignation, here we just see an arb request. I haven't seen anything near contrition or I may have acted out of process from GW. This tells me that she is a lot more invested in this situation then she will admit to. The writing has been there on the wall for some time and in this case she exercised poor judgement. I doubt it raises to taking her bit but a clarification or codification of AE would be a better idea for the entire project. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are likely right User:Thryduulf however I do wonder how much her being a present arb member will sway the committee opinions? I have a question, or rather a series of them. Has there been a case on a sitting arb like this in the past? I am curious what has been done in the past to what might be a conflict of interest or a desire to "protect your own". It may be a rare occurrence but something like this may need to be seen by a different committee, like a reserve committee. This is likely the correct venue but one of the reasons I wouldn't try a formal venue because of my perception that it would be filled by sycophants and partisans. What processes protect the case assuming it is accepted and it's perceived neutrality. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amortias

I may be somewhat involved as I was the initiator of a previous AE action with regards to Eric Corbett, however i am aiming to be as impartial as is humanly possible. I agree that he does good work but thisis not the issue that is at hand here. There was a clear cut violation of a topic ban that was in force. If we are going to allow breeches of topic basn by one author then for consistencies sake we must allow other editors to do so.

If we are going to allow editors to evade these then the objective of them is moot and they should all be rescinded. I can see no good of us treating editors in a different light purely on their content contributions. If we were to do so we would have a balance of power that is not collabarative but more akin to I've been here longer and therefore have more rights than you. I have seen blocks and bans handed out to several long term editors in my brief existence here and fell that although they may be a great loss the actions taken are for the greater good.

GorillaWarfares actions were from my understanding following the letter of the law (for lack of a better description). Yes they may have wished to reopen the AE section that had been swiftly closed (something which I feel also needs evaluating) but their actions had grounds in policy and this is the line we must judge everyones actions by. Was the policy followed or not if we descend into name calling and personal opinions on the matter then we are going to end up as a 2nd version of ANI. Amortias (T)(C) 11:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbs Per Collect's statement is there a policy for arbs to be removed from a case where appropriate if they do not recuse themselves? Noting that it doesn't affect the case at hand. Amortias (T)(C) 14:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

(1) I don't see where GregJackP, as a non-party to these events, has standing to bring this request. As such it should be rejected.
(2) Black Kite closed the AE request after a mere 4 hours without any uninvolved admin discussion, something I've never seen happen before. For that reason, I do not see it as a legitimate close, but instead as an expression of Black Kite's opinion. I don't doubt that he came by that opinion honestly, and by taking the opinions of the commenters into account, but AE is a place for admin discussion and action, not a discussion board, and issues there have always been settled by a consensus of uninvolved admins, informed by, but not dependent on, the opinions of the commenters.
(3) Therefore, GorillaWarfare's decision to block Eric Corbett was not a refutation of an AE decision, it was a choice to take action where Black Kite had decided to take none. That's not wheel-warring, and it's also not in any respect disrespectful to an AE decision, since there was effectively no AE decision as defined by normal processes, simply a statement of non-action by a single admin.
(4) As pointed out by GorillaWarfare, the clear community consensus is that Eric Corbett's statement was an obvious violation of his topic ban. This fact needs to be kept firmly in mind when evaluating this situation.
(5) The committee should reject this request.
(6) If so inclined, a very mild rebuke could be issued by motion to Black Kite for usurping the normal AE process and shutting down the possibility of a discussion between uninvolved admins leading to a consensus, which, had it been allowed to happen, would most probably have prevented all this drama.
(7) A more substantial sanction could also be considered for GregJackP for unnecessarily extending that drama with this request. BMK (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the additional events Davewilde summed up well below, I suppose the Committee really has no choice but to accept this case. BMK (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Under Discretionary Sanctions, the arbitration policy meant to actuate the committee's non-consensus powers and which creates the arbitration enforcement board, there is no procedure for "close" of discussions on AE, so any "procedural objections" to a block arising after a "close", simply do not exist (if one is going to object to something on "procedure", you at least have to show where the procedure is). The Discretionary Sanctions also give discretion to admins, like GW, to enforce the committee's non-consensus powers, and do specify that only the blocked party may appeal (so in actual "procedure" any appeal must be denied). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Arbs forbidden to act as admins, that sounds like bureaucratic nonsense (and is also not supported in policy). To draw an imperfect analogy, judges enforce their own decisions all the time: so, an arb/admin enforcing -- not their own decision -- but the decision of the committee is perfectly reasonable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following-up on this, the idea that it would be "best practice" for arbs not to enforce arbitration committee decisions, does not seem to have been thought through - to the contrary, individually, as admins, they should regularly be cursed (or blessed) with enforcing committee decisions - that would be the best way to get good practical decisions because experience is the best teacher. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To further discuss "close:" Non-Admin's "close" things all the time, generally, as long as they don't need tools to affect their close - so, "closing" does not make it an admin action. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well. No Monty, for example non-admins can close things "keep", "no merge", "no action", "it would be best if you all just move along", " no consensus", etc., etc., etc. Your AE "closing" claim is just not founded in the actual policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reaper Eternal: Only the blocked may appeal an arbitration enforcement block. So, how can you unblock for "Per the (lack of) consensus" [14], or on any basis at all? Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I'm here to share experience as somebody who was previously often active at WP:AE. As concerns GorillaWarfare's actions, this request (which is a block appeal in disguise) should be rejected because it was not made by a user who claims to have been disadvantaged by her actions. Per WP:AC/DS, only sanctioned users themselves may appeal discretionary sanctions.

As concerns Black Kite's actions, I don't think that closing an AE thread is an admin action. After all, it does not involve the use of admin tools, or the exercise of any particular authority delegated to administrators. Also, the AE board is not intended as a forum in which discussions are held and consensus is formed (because no consensus is needed for AE actions), but rather only as a place in which to make enforcement requests for individual admins to act on, much like WP:AIV. Nothing in any applicable procedure (except with respect to appeals, which are not at issue here) requires that there be any discussion threads at WP:AE, or that any such threads are explicitly closed by anybody. "Closing" threads at WP:AE, in my experience, is merely a housekeeping practice done to signal that a decision has been made and that no other admins need attend to the request. But because abandoned threads are automatically archived, it is not necessary to close them.

If one were to consider that an individual administrator could, by "closing" an enforcement request, prevent colleagues from acting on it, that would be tantamount to granting any admin preemptive veto power over future enforcement actions by other admins. I cannot imagine that any such thing was intended by ArbCom in setting up the relevant procedures. However, such a veto, by way of invoking a "consensus" of (judging by the tone of their messages, not very uninvolved) non-admin bystanders that had no material significance for the enforcement request, seems to be what Black Kite attempted to accomplish with their closure of the thread at issue. I recommend that the Arbitration Committee examine whether Black Kite has, in doing so, attempted to disrupt the effective enforcement of an arbitral sanction, has attempted to act as an administrator while involved, or has otherwise not met the Committee's expectations in administrators participating in arbitration enforcement. Sandstein 12:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

We have a reasonable number of active admins. I know that nowhere near all of them involve themselves with matters at AE, and that some only rarely make any admin action at all, but there is no actual need for an Arbitrator who was involved in a case to enforce anything that is raised there which relates to the same case. That it is billed as an admin action doesn't really change a thing, and GorillaWarfare is most definitely not a neutral in the specific instance that has led to this case/clarification request. I'm not even sure whether clerks should do so, but that rather depends on the cross-over that exists between the arbs' mailing list and that of the clerks - if there is none then there is no issue. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, we should be aiming for a separation of powers at AE, if only in the interests of transparency. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

Recommend this Request be rejected. Let's turn back the clock to the moment the AE report-in-question was made & this time, allow uninvolved adminstrators to comment in the page's appropiate section :) GoodDay (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sjakkalle

Editors that enforce sanctions against Eric Corbett have routinely been subjected to a barrage of personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, and calls for their desysopping. I believe there is a significant segment of the community that objects to the topic ban, and whose actions have been sabotaging its enforcement. The ArbCom should take one of two courses: Either (1) Lift Eric Corbett's GGTF topic ban if it concludes that the ban never should have been imposed in the first place, or (2) Take it upon itself to impose a block or site ban since this is the fifth violation in half a year. ArbCom needs to step up to the plate here. The status quo, where admins who enforce the topic ban are forced to run a vicious gauntlet of assaults, is disgraceful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

Addressing some points raised:

The primary issue is the famed zugzwang or "first mover" issue on all acts by administrators. This has been discussed a few times, but never with an actual solution. Such a solution well ought to be discussed and agreed upon. In the past, an action based upon actual discussion was considered to be made by multiple persons, and thus a reversal of a discussion based upon a consensus of some sort is, indeed, "wheel warring." Otherwise any admin should simply wait until the person who notes a consensus acts, and then can simply reverse that act - and buys an entire second discussion. The first discussion, where a consensus exists (even a consensus of "no action" is, by definition an "action" by consensus) should stand. I make no statement as to whether any consensus exists or existed in the matter at hand, only that the precedent is that a consensus is not an "act by a single administrator" which can lightly be reversed.

The second issue is whether a judge who issues an order and then acts to enforce that order is also allowed to hear the appeal about his actions. He isn't. The idea that "arbitrators are elected, therefore have a right to recuse or not on their own volition" is exceedingly weak. (" - every committee member individually received majority support from the community to hear all cases, regardless of participants, and trusted our judgement to recuse when we had a conflict of interest or otherwise felt we would not be neutral" is far off the mark here.) If an arbitrator has prejudged an issue (and blocking a person indicates such a prejudgment as far as I can tell) then logic demands that they recuse from appeals of their own personal acts.

I hold no position at all whatever about the affair at hand. Collect (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Monty845

To respond to some points raised about the validity of an AE close, any other action EXCEPT a no-action close would unambiguously constitute an admin action, and under the discretionary sanctions rules, could not be overturned without an active consensus at a noticeboard. To wikilawyer a bit, if the block had been 1 minute long, extending it to a month without consensus (or permission of the original admin) would have violated the DS rules, and subjected the extender to a likely de-sysop. An interpretation of DS policy that would honor a 1 minute block, by not a close declining action seems arbitrary and capricious. The committee should definitely do something here to clarify policy, and either unambiguously accept or reject the position that the close of an AE thread is an enforcement action on DS that may only be reversed by clear consensus. This is something that it only makes sense for the committee to do. Given the policy was unclear at best, and there is no actual dispute about the underlying DS violation, a full case may not be necessary, but a clarification motion should occur at a minimum. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker: yes, it is normally the case that non-admins can close discussions, and thus the closes are not strictly admin actions(I'd call them quasi-admin actions). But AE is one of the only places that privilege admins above non-admins when it comes to discussions. A non-admin can theoretically close a community imposed topic ban discussion at AN or AN/I and impose it on another editor. A non-admin categorically cannot impose a DS topic ban, either directly or by closing an AE discussion. So AE is just different here. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by KTC

@Thryduulf: well this was a motion rather than a whole case, and this was a case request on a former arb that was made moot by a resignation. Of course, there's been others that an arb had been a named party as well if someone want to go through the archives. -- KTC (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capeo

This doesn't require a full blown case I wouldn't think. It does require some hefty clarification by motion though. Just look at the AN thread and some of the statements above. We have admins whose interpretation of AE policies are completely at odds. Is consensus required in any way? My understanding is that it isn't. In fact I've seen admins block against the consensus of other admins. More commonly, you couldn't even have a consensus between admins because only one admin has chimed in. What constitutes an admin action? Given the wording "explicitly or in substance" my interpretation would be that closing without action, something only an admin can do, would be an admin action and the subsequent block would overturning that action. Is that the case though? The best outcome here, in my opinion anyway, would be clarification on the policies. If it's determined the block was out of process GW should get an admonishment at most and the block should be rescinded. The last thing WP needs now is more fuel on this fire. Capeo (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

We now have a situation in which any one rogue administrator can unilaterally overturn an AE close, so long as they are blocking, and impose an unalterable block. ArbCom needs to clarify this matter. The secondary question here is whether Gorilla Warfare, with her out of process block, abused tools in a sanctionable way. ArbCom is the only mechanism for enforcement of proper administrative behavior. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Resolute

Echoing Allanscottwalker and Beyond My Ken's reasoning entirely, save that I don't believe Arbcom needs to rebuke Black Kite for a good faith error. In short, this was not a violation of WP:WHEEL, and re-interpreting WP:INVOLVED to suggest an a current or former arbitrator cannot take administrative action on an editor who was subject to a case they adjudicated opens the door wide open to arguing that taking any administrative action itself makes one involved. Finally, to reinforce what a few others have said and which Eric's defenders have deftly buried, this was Eric's fifth violation of his arbcom enforced topic ban in six months. If this was any other editor, does anyone actually think "no action" is the proper result? Reso lute 16:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Biblioworm

GorillaWarfare's action did not actually constitute wheel-warring, since she did not reinstate an administrative action which had already been undone. Therefore, I don't think this particular case should be accepted. --Biblioworm 16:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions by Ncmvocalist

This has been a most unfortunate mess to be reading through, with many comments which are disappointing. I don't think saying something to the effect of "nobody is arguing it wasn't a violation" really cuts it.

I sought clarification from this Committee in relation to exactly this type of issue in February 2015 (click here) - and that was sparked after Sandstein's handling of a similar AE request). It also dealt with the question of whether it would be wheel-warring. Each and every arb was fully aware of it, and knew this was coming; yet an arb has effectively perpetuated the issue. Instead of assisting in resolving disputes, the involvement by an arb has recklessly caused more problems. And that too, at AE.

I think a number of questions, including those below, need to be considered as far as a case is concerned or what is to happen next. I have given my answers and comments to some; others I've left alone to answer sooner or to be answered later.

Black Kite (admin)

Did his closure of the AE thread constitute an AE action? To name a couple of arbs, Salvio & DQ considered a closure of an AE request does constitute such an action when we discussed this at my clarification request. Otherwise, any uninvolved editor would be able to close an AE request.
What is a valid closure of an AE request? Is it from a consensus of AE admins or after an action is determined by an AE admin individually? Which of the two was this particular closure? If a consensus was required and there was no consensus or it was closed prematurely, then the closure needed to be overturned. If there was a consensus or if it was enough for an admin to determine that no action was needed, the closure was valid.
Is he INVOLVED as far as the blocked user is concerned?
Was the closure appropriate (with no action) in the circumstances of what was said at the thread, the time which had elapsed since the request was made, and the level of seriousness (however high or low) of the violation? This may not necessarily be answered here right here, given it is partially under discussion at AN.

GorillaWarfare (arb & admin)

Was she aware of the AE thread and its closure? Yes.
Was she aware of the vulnerability at AE in relation to this issue? Yes - she was a sitting arb at the time of my clarification request.
Did she consult with the other users who discussed the matter at AE about her objection with the closure? Or did she consult with the admin who closed the thread about her intended reversal of the AE non-action?
Was there a pressing need for her to use force to take the action that she did? No, it was inappropriate - and especially so for an arbitrator who should be leading by example in an arbitration-related matter (even if not a committee action). Due caution and restraint was not exercised.
Could she have re-opened the AE discussion boldly, or sought to re-open the AE discussion?
Was the unnecessary drama and disruption which resulted from the way she approached this situation predictable? Yes, this isn't as new as some suggest. It was her deliberate choice; she knew exactly what she was doing.
Does the community hold arbitrators to higher standards when they perform actions on Wikipedia even as an admin? Yes.
Were concerns regarding her strong feelings on the topic and user raised previously? Yes - I think it went to the point that a recusal request was raised during the gender gap case. Is she INVOLVED as far as the gender gap topic is concerned or the blocked user is concerned?
Should she recuse - and refrain from taking any further admin actions in relation to the topic and this particular user? Is she open to resolving the concerns moving forward, or does she wish to behave as rigidly as certain other admins at AE have done previously?

More relating to sanctioned editor and filing party.

Eric Corbett (sanctioned editor)

Did he violate his topic ban?
Was there a pressing need to enforce the topic ban if he did? As I said above, no.
Was enforcement necessary? In particular, was there a developing pattern of breaching the restriction which was developing?
I stop the questions here in relation to this user as the AN discussion has not yet closed.

GregJackP (filing party)

Was there grounds for making a request to the committee? Quite obviously, and it didn't matter who did. The matter warrants some form of investigation, review, or clarification to ensure this type of disruption no longer arises.
Was his request made in bad faith and does it alone warrant sanctions? I don't see how it does.
Did his action constitute forum-shopping? I don't see how it can; it is after all an arbitration matter and he is not seeking an appeal.
Have attempts been made to intimidate him for coming here? Yes. One administrator has made a flimsy accusation of bullying and forum-shopping. Another editor has made an accusation of extending drama and called for sanctions.

Given the above, a case seems to be needed; the clarification at my last request seems to be unknown by most of the users commenting here. If the committee prefers the community is to have a discussion on aspects of this matter or the process which should be in place, it can by motion organise an RfC first (or after the case if it wants). A committee-organised RfC may help ensure it is not hijacked by the type of inappropriate commentary seen at this case request, at AN threads relating to this, at user talk pages relating to this, and elsewhere. It can also ensure there is a structure to the RfC so that the result is (hopefully) meaningful or beneficial to the project, broadly construed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rschen7754

Given that Black Kite has been quite outspoken in regards to Eric Corbett in the past (link refers to [15]), I am concerned about his closure of the thread. With that being said, I do not think that arbitrators should be performing enforcement in most cases, but it is more of a "best practices" matter to me. --Rs chen 7754 17:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lightbreather

This request should be declined. I opened and read "Information for administrators processing requests" at WP:AE several times now.

First bullet: If you participate on this page you should be prepared to mete out potentially long term bans and you should expect reactive behavior from those banned.

I don't believe Black Kite was prepared to mete out a ban.

Second bullet (partial): ... administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy... (emphasis mine)

While doing nothing might be considered an "action," the action in question was not done "pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy" nor was it "explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy." Consensus among comments - in the span of four hours - was that EvergreenFir was engaging in "harassment." There was NO discussion of whether or not an ArbCom remedy had been violated, which is what AE is for. Lightbreather (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

I am uninvolved in the matter. I just got to know about it because I watch WP:AE because of my involvement in WP:ARBPIA. 2 points

Regarding the point that WP:AE closing is not an "admin" matter, it is routine to reopen WP:AE discussions when another admin has closed it, to offer different viewpoints. User GW was certainly aware of the WP:AE closing, and she could have reopened it, if it seemed to her that the measure was inadequate.
Let's assume for the moment that Eric Corbett actually violated the remedy. Does it mean that he should be blocked without any discretion whatsoever? There is plenty of precedent in WP:ARBPIA where one person breaks WP:1RR, which can happen even accidentally, the other person either makes a request at WP:AE or makes a comment on the talk page. Even veteran users are unclear as to whether WP:1RR is broken. The other person can accept that WP:1RR is broken and self-reverts, (sometimes self-reverts even without accepting it) and that is the end of the matter.

I find myself in agreement with Black Kite. What is the point of WP:AE if anyone can simply ignore what goes on there? Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

..Personally I don't think there was any wheel warring - BK closed the AE report as no result and GW blocked him anyway... so had anyone reverted the block/GW then a case could've been brought forward ... But there was no unblocking-wars.... –Davey2010^Talk 19:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I would remind the Committee of the complaints I raised in the GamerGate case regarding Black Kite's administrative conduct, particularly acting as an admin while WP:INVOLVED, which has continued after the conclusion of the case. Also reminding the Committee of GorillaWarfare's "unrecusal" in the GamerGate case itself despite her very strong views as noted in the dispute on her talk page. There has been similar controversy over her participation in the Lightbreather case. Neither of these admins seem to have improved their behavior since the concerns I raised during that case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick

I'd urge the committee to accept the case, even if it's framed as a sort of RfC solely for the purposes of identifying and rectifying grey areas, loopholes, points of contention etc that can be used to support or oppose Arbitration Enforcement. The fact the policy, as it currently stands, would have allowed me to block Eric for 1 minute and for nobody else to be able to impose a longer block makes a mockery of the whole system, as does the ability for all but 1 administrator to refuse to take action. AE as is really is an atrocious process resulting in some pretty abysmal decisions. Please, put it out of its misery and give us the opportunity to make something better. Nick (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

Arbitration enforcement actions, as in closing a discussion with a particular result, are never to be undone without further discussion and consensus. ArbCom has said this in no uncertain terms. I think GorillaWarfare made a mistake, but the error was not wheel warring. It was interference with arbitration enforcement. The proper action would be to question BlackKite or to reopen the discussion as improperly decided and then see if other administrators would agree to change the result. On Wikipedia it is sometimes necessary to exhibit great patience to get a correct result that sticks. I oppose sanctioning anybody over this matter, and do not think a case is needed, so long as GorillaWarfare expresses an understanding of how her action destabilized the arbitration enforcement regime. Parties to a request for enforcement should not be able to shop around for the most strict administrator who will apply a sanction when others will not (and as Kevin says below, they shouldn't be able to shop around for the least strict). If a discussion does not produce a clear result and is closed prematurely, it can be reopened.

As for Eric, I think we need to construe things as leniently as possible when an editor is on their own talk page. Nobody needs to watch Eric's talk page unless they want to. On an article or project talk page, enforcement should be stricter, and on somebody else's talk page, hostile comments directed at the talk page owner should receive the sternest enforcement. Applying this principle, it would be better to ignore the comment Eric made. Working against Eric is his own admission that he's baiting a block. But, as they say, a smart fish doesn't take the bait. Jehochman ^Talk 20:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing an AE request with a sanction or with a sanction of zero are logically identical. If the sanction is found to be zero, there is no logical reason that the close should be overturned by any admin who comes along and feels that the sanction should be >0. No more so than a close of >0 sanction should be overturned by an admin who thinks 0 is the correct sanction. Jehochman ^Talk 03:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kevin Gorman

I still don't think this needs a full arbcom case. I think that Reaper Eternal should, by motion, be stripped of his CU and sysop rights. The minor trouting that already occurred in Adj's original close already stands in the memory of those involved. Gorilla should have probably reopened the AE thread instead of taken unilateral action, but I view either view as valid, particularly given there is absolutely no dispute that it was a violation of Eric's topic ban, and Gorilla's block length is adhering to standard escalating arb enforcement blocks. I do agree that arbs should generally not be directly involved with enforcement, but don't think that should universally be the case.

In summary:

Reaper Eternal should have all of his advanced privileges stripped by motion for intentionally and knowingly violating one of arbcom's most well accepted red-lines. Reaper knew full well what he was doing, and the ordinary penalties for doing it He may be a good checkuser, but the judgement he has demonstrated here demands that his CU and sysop bits to be stripped, possibly to be restored later by their appropriate processes.
Eric's original block duration should be reinstated ASAP, because it was removed out of process. If he wants to appeal it, he can appeal it.
A 'no action' close - particularly a rapid one - is not an 'enforcement decision' per policy. If it were, anyone could find a friendly admin to rapidly close ae sections about them thus dodging sanctions or people could collaborate to quickly file a AE with an admin arranged irresponsibly off wiki to enforce the harshest punishment possible. If this happened, we could deal with it with a lot of unnecessary drama and desysop cases.
Black Kite deserves a trout for closing the AE so early, when so few admins and so many of Eric's friends had chimed in. I had certainly not had a chance to chime in.
Gorilla may deserve a minor trout. If Arb majority view (and I view this as a serious error) is that a no action AE close is an 'enforcement action' then any action taken against GW should take in to fact that that was not at all established when she acted (whereas Reaper knew exactly what he was doing,) that Black Kite had left the AE thread open for an abnormally short period of time, and the fact that she was in fact enforcing an arb decision with appropriate block length. At best she should be minorly admonished by motion. She could have reopened the AE thread, but enforcing the violation (that everyone agrees is a violation) of Eric's topic ban is well within her power. In no circumstances should GW's penalties, if any, approach Reaper Eternal's.
Several other individuals deserve trouts for prolonging drama, probably including myself, but I see no other sanctionable behavior at this time, and beieve that this can be dealt with entirely by motion without the need for the full case.
Issues regarding AE policy - like the appropriate length a section should be open and other revisions - can be handled by the community.
Adjwiley deserves admiration for being willing to even consider closing the ANI thread, and has already made the wise choice not to shorten the block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EvergreenFir

AN made it clear there are a number of issues that need addressing:

How does admin discretion come into play if admins are a part of the community's inability to independently resolve an issue?
Similarly, what is INVOLVED in regards to admin actions on AE filings?
What is considered "admin action" on AE?
What does an ideal AE course of events look like for filing with merit?
How should tban violations be handled if the violation is minor?
How should tbans and sanctions for them be viewed?

Part of the fundamental problem is that admins typically use their discretion when addressing problem behavior, but this discretion is problematic with respect to tban enforcement when they have strong opinions counter to the arbcom's ruling. If they oppose the sanctions, they will look for ways to avoid enforcing them. The same can be said for the reverse that someone may look for excusing to mete out blocks. We have mechanisms in place to review such poor blocks, but any way to review lack of action.

Moreover, arbcom is used when the community cannot resolve problems. This means that ANI and admins themselves were unable to deal with an issue effectively. So how can we expect admins to adequately handle AE requests if they themselves are also so polarized unless they are directed to simply enforce as in Arbitration Enforement the arb com remedies? Admins should only use discretion and consider community input to determine if the alleged violation is indeed a violation and was done so knowingly and intentionally. Nothing more. (Note, only referring to dealing with tbans from cases, not discretionary sanctions).

For #2, admins who make unsolicited comments either for or against an individuals with clear bias should at the very least refrain from dealing with that individual or requests for enforcement against them because they've already expressed their inability to remain remotely neutral. Arbs' comments are solicited in cases and thus should not be used against them.

For #4, the handling of the AE filing that prompted this case was far from ideal. When filings with merit routinely stay open for days, closure within hours seems extraordinary. Moreover, it was evident that those expressing opinions were not prompted to do so because they were simply browsing AE. Given that, far too much weight was given to those opinions by prematurely closing the filing. Moreover, no one addressed the nature of the alleged violation itself; comments focused only on the filer, the party to the case, and the tban itself.

For #5 and #6, I make an analogy between tbans and probation. If an individual has a tban against them from the arbcom, it means they acted inappropriately, were brought before a panel of judges, and was sentenced to probation (a warning in lieu of punishment or remedies with certain conditions that must be adhered to). Violations of the terms of probation are considered seriousas they show a continuation of the behavior that landed them before the judges. Repeated violations, even if minor, are continuations of the same problematic behavior that the arbs thought serious enough to warrant investigation and remedies in the first place.

AE blocks are not in response to the single action, they're in response to the pattern of actions. In this sense, blocks are not quite punitive or preventative. They are meant to stop the pattern of behavior. They prevent further ongoing disruption but also discourage continuation of that disruption by use of negative sanctions (blocks).

Thus I encourage arbcom to consider and clarify the purpose of AE, its ideal protocol for admin responses to AE filings, and the purpose and nature of tbans.

Statement by Gerda Arendt

I request the committee to look at an aspect of AE that troubles me: a report without a talk to the other user before. A talk hoping for a revert has been done, and I suggest to request it if not done, before comments even begin, hoping that the user in question will revert or modify the edit in question. The Sunday sermon in music is about mercy.

Statement by uninvolve DHeyward

A review of Eric's block log clearly shows there was no wheel-warring. That was defined long ago as the 3rd act. He was blocked and unblocked. Whether he violated the GGTF topic ban with a comment on his talk page is beyond my knowledge. However, being taken to AE for a comment on his talk page might be the basis for an IBAN between the filer and Eric. Whether that can be handled through AE DS or needs a case here is up to the committee. Unwatching Eric's talk page might be good for everyone. Perhaps Eric can be the first editor that has full protection on his own space so he can concentrate on content and avoid comments unrelated to articles he works on. --DHeyward (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davewild

Since the case request was opened, Adjwilley closed the WP:AN discussion saying that given no consensus they were shortening the block length to 1 week, but crucially did not immediately implement this. After comments on their talk page - User talk:Adjwilley#Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions - including from 2 arbitrators Courcelles and Euryalus, they reverted the close after it was pointed out to them that they could not modify an arbitration enforcement sanction without "clear and substantial consensus". Reaper Eternal has now reclosed the discussion and unblocked Eric Corbett saying that as there was no consensus and the default state is to be unblocked they have unblocked.

I think that given the latest developments the committee is going to have to look at the whole run of events both to clarify areas that are unclear and decide if anyone should be sanctioned. This could include the original comment by Eric Corbett (was this a violation of the Topic Ban and should it be sanctioned?), the original closure by Black Kite (was this an acceptable closure?), the subsequent blocking by GorillaWarfare (was this allowed given Black Kite's closure as no action and if not would it have been acceptable for them to reopen the WP:AE thread?) and finally the unblocking by Reaper Eternal (was this ok without "clear and substantial consensus"?) At the very least the committee needs to give clarity for the future to try and reduce the likelihood of similar events happening again. Davewild (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TenOfAllTrades

Regarding Reaper Eternal's recent unblocking, it looks like he is unfamiliar with the standards set out for reversing another administrator's Arbitratation Enforcement action. A lack of consensus for the block at AN/I (note, not a clear and substantial consensus to overturn to the block) is insufficient grounds to reverse an AE block.

AE blocks (and other enforcement actions taken under Discretionary Sanctions) are afforded this special status precisely because they are applied in areas where interminable and inconclusive noticeboard discussions have previously been tried and failed repeatedly to resolve problems. Allowing Reaper Eternal to overturn a friend's block based on yet-another-interminable-and-inconclusive-AN/I-thread directly undermines the purpose and function of the entirely DS framework.

I hope that Reaper Eternal was simply unaware of the strictness of the rules that apply to AE/DS blocks – or failed to fully think through the consequences of trying to bend those rules so far, or to appreciate why the standards for an AE/DS appeal are as high as they are – and that he will withdraw or amend his actions accordingly. (Or, if someone else does it first, that he will acknowledge going forward that he made a mistake in overturning another admin's AE/DS action this way.)

Failing that, Reaper Eternal should be barred from acting or participating in the the AE/DS process in any administrative capacity. ArbCom should further consider whether or not he remains fit to retain adminship and other advanced privileges. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, as a procedural matter I think that the bulk of the issues presented can be addressed by motion without requiring a full case. The ArbCom can re-affirm its provisions regarding the application of discretionary sanctions (especially that overturning an enforcement action requires a clear, active, and substantial consensus of uninvolved admins, and that enforcement isn't paralyzed or defeated by a deadlocked noticeboard thread) and remind the admin corps that appeals are to be directed to the ArbCom. Depending on Reaper Eternal's response to these proceedings, his situation can be dealt with by admonishment, restriction, or desysopping, again by motion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by B

@GorillaWarfare: You said, "Whether the closure of a discussion at AE constitutes an 'admin action' should certainly be clarified."

No, there is nothing that needs to be clarified. The policy says, "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy ... ."

It does not say "admin action" - it says "any action" and, "any action" means "any action", not "any block". Believing that the wrong decision was made does not give you the authority to overturn the close. --B (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators, is the case preliminarily named Enforcement of previous ArbCom decisions or AE closes, timelines, and independent admin actions? One needs to be picked for consistency; the level two section header says the former, while the "Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter" section uses the latter. @Courcelles: Can I indent your second comment, consistent with common practice? @GorillaWarfare: Do you want to be marked as recused on this case formally? You are not currently so marked. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @GorillaWarfare: Darned, I read that tally wrong... my bad, no action needed from you. (The rest of the note earlier still stands for the other arbs.) Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 05:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement of previous ArbCom decisions: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/1/2/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

Awaiting statements. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will, quite obviously, not be active on this case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @L235: I'm not? Yes, I should formally be marked as recused. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just changed the name of the case to something which I felt was more appropriate; if any of my colleagues can come up with anything more accurate, please feel free to change the name again without consulting me. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a couple of grey areas in policy which should be clarified (for instance, when is it appropriate to speedily close an AE thread, should arbitrators be enforcing previous arbcom decisions, is a "no action" closure of an AE thread an admin action?) and, to that end, a case may be useful, which is why at the moment I am leaning toward accepting this request, though I welcome further statements from the community, especially from those members who are familiar with the workings of AE. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is declining to take an admin action itself an admin action within the rules of modifying arbitration sanctions. I answer this an unequivocal no. I could not disagree more. As I've said elsewhere, closing an AE thread is a. a decision on the merits of the report and b. an action restricted to admins; it may not require the use of admin tools, but it requires admin status and, therefore, as far as I'm concerned, it's an admin action.
    As this disagreement proves, there is the need to clarify the grey areas in policy; to do that, we need a case, which, incidentally, would also give us the perfect opportunity to publish a set of principles codifying best practices to help admins who are already enforcing our decisions and those who would like to start. For that, accept. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everyone who has said this was not wheel warring, as wheel warring requires at least three admin actions and regardless of your point of view there were at most two here. Speaking personally, I feel there were two admin actions here - the closing of the AE discussion, and GorillaWarfare's block (not that either are examples of good admin actions). I'm not sure whether this point needs a full case or just a motion of clarification. There is also the question of when it is appropriate to speedily close an AE thread, I have some thoughts on this but I'm inclined to think they would be better presented as part of a community discussion rather than as an official statement of an arbitrator. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hell in a Bucket: I see no need at all for there to be any resignations or removals of admin bits in this case. GW was explicitly acting as an admin not an arbitrator, and a very frequent principle we adopt is "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect." (e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione#Administrators). No accusations have been made that this is part of a pattern of misconduct so resignation or desysopping would seem at this juncture not to be proportionate outcomes. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hell in a Bucket: This is not the first case request brought against a sitting committee member, but I can't immediately bring to mind previous examples to link to (Newyorkbrad is often good at remembering that sort of stuff), but remember Chase me ladies is a former arbitrator who served with some of the present committee and he did not get preferential treatment (note I was recused from that case and not a party to internal discussions). If a case is accepted, it will be heard by all the non-recused arbitrators and discussion will take place on the -b or -c mailing lists from which GW (and anyone else who recuses from the case) will be unsubscribed for the duration of the case. Those non-recused arbitrators will hear the case fairly and impartially exactly as we do for all other cases. There is no "reserve committee" - every committee member individually received majority support from the community to hear all cases, regardless of participants, and trusted our judgement to recuse when we had a conflict of interest or otherwise felt we would not be neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept to look at what clarification is needed regarding closures of AE discussions and actions taken regarding closed AE discussions in general and this instance in particular. To avoid anything getting messy and confusing, if there are ongoing issues regarding the conduct of any party that is broader than this specific incident that should be subject to a separate arbitration request iff prior steps of dispute resolution have been exhausted. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I do not consider the level of the actual sanction part of this request (beyond determining, that, yes, it was a violation of the topic ban), Eric can easily appeal that himself, and I think, after reading the AN, he would be unblocked in process if he did so. What we're here for is the process in which the sanction was imposed -- the entire matter hangs on one issue: Is declining to take an admin action itself an admin action within the rules of modifying arbitration sanctions. I answer this an unequivocal no. The policy talks about modifying sanctions being prohibited, and a non-sanction cannot be construed as a sanction; at least under the procedures that apply to enforcing arbitration sanctions. In this specific case, though, I think the close by Black Kite of the AE thread was a terrible decision; because whatever sanction was or wasn't warranted, the filing was not baseless (it was clearly a breach of the topic ban in place), and dismissing it after three and a half hours with very little commentary (and a decent proportion of even that being criticism against the filing party). But, an AE consensus, or even filing, has never and should never be required to enforce direct sanctions of the committee. (Or DS, really, but enforcing a direct sanction should be a much clearer case.) Decline Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To Hell in a Bucket, I am aware of one instance in which a sitting arbitrator was admonished as part of a final decision in a case. Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. LFaraone 23:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per Davewild, who sums it up very well. Everyone is acting in good faith, but there is a considerable lack of clarity on the appropriate way forward. I think it likely this can ultimately be resolved by motion rather than PD, but let's have the conversation via the case structure so everyone gets a say (and if there's any genuine conduct issues, these can be aired in a formal forum). -- Euryalus (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kww

Initiated by Writ Keeper ⚇♔ at 15:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Writ Keeper (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

ANI thread (link may need updating for the archive)

Statement by Writ Keeper

The crux of this matter is Kww's use of admin tools and interpretation of the policies relevant to that use. The focal point is Kww's recent block of The Rambling Man, a user whom Kww had been having a disagreement--in fact, arguably an edit war--with over the lists List of awards and nominations received by Philip Seymour Hoffman and List of awards and nominations received by Hugh Jackman. The dispute originated in the Hoffman list; Kww claimed BLP exceptions to further the edit war there, despite Hoffman having been deceased for a year and a half. When the dispute spread to Jackman, after TRM reverted a month-old edit of Kww's there, Kww ended up blocking TRM. Georgewilliamherbert, feeling that this was an edit war and that the block was a breach of WP:INVOLVED, blocked Kww, and I, feeling the same and finding agreement on ANI, unblocked TRM. In the discussion above, and in his unblock requests, Kww has persistently refused to recognize the strong opinions of most commenters that this was a breach of INVOLVED, citing a rather shockingly loose interpretation--in my opinion--of the word "controversial" in the BLP policy to justify his actions.

Secondary to this case is Kww's use of edit filters here and elsewhere to effectively perform admin actions virtually without oversight; I gave an example in the ANI thread of an edit filter Kww made that was basically a permanent, invisible block of an IP address (only in the article namespace, but then the IP editor in question had barely ever edited any other) without warning or notice to other editors. I suspect there are other problematic edit filters. I know that Arbcom doesn't make policy, and that there is little policy around the edit filter, but without policy and without any practical oversight, we must rely on admins' judgement and discretion when it comes to the edit filter, or indeed any situation outside of the strict letter of policy, and I'm not sure I can trust Kww's after seeing these things.

I'm not necessarily condoning either Kww's or TRM's actions prior to the block, but I think Kww's use of the admin tools, both blocking and the derived permission of edit filter manager, is the thing most in need of review here. Given Kww's response to the ANI thread, and the fact that this involves the admin permissions (which is solely Arbcom's territory), I think that Arbcom is the only viable place to resolve this. Thanks.

Statement by Kww

The key issues here is actually not WP:BLP. First, as I have stated, I will freely admit one error on my part regarding WP:BLP: I was operating under the belief that the 2-year rule was absolute. I see that it is now 6 months to 2 years, depending on other factors. That misapprehension was the reason I cited BLP in relation to Hoffman.

The main issue here is not WP:BLP, however: it's WP:BURDEN and WP:V. The requirement for inline citations after material has been challenged is absolute: it harbors no exceptions. Once material has been challenged on sourcing and validity grounds, it cannot be restored by any editor without an inline citation that supports it. TRM did this repeatedly, and, leaving the article with around oa third or the material he ad restored, declared himself "[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Rambling_Man&diff=prev&oldid=668521853 done]". He described my warnings on the topic as pathetic, repeatedly referring to it as a "crusade". In retrospect, my error was not blocking him for intentional policy disruption at the point: his edits were clear and intentional efforts to insert unsourced material in violation of multiple policies. For TRM to stop editing the Hoffman and shift to Hugh Jackman to perform precisely the same disruption after I had told him that I would provide him with an opportunity to repair the issues with Hoffman was a clear indication that he intended to widen the scope of his disruption. I would have blocked any less experienced editor at that point, and few would have complained. In terms of the Hugh Jackman edits, those were BLP violations, regardless of the uproar. The AE decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive160#Cwobeel applies. For those that would claim that they are somehow "different", they aren't. Cwobeel was responding to precisely the same kind of awards removals as TRM, and providing exactly the same kind of sources. The only substantive difference is that TRM is an experience admin as opposed to being a newbie.

Editors constantly argue that admins should not be a privileged class. This problem is an effort to treat TRM as a privileged editor.—Kww(talk) 23:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Rambling Man

I noticed that the Hoffman list had been incompletely censored under some interpretation of "contentious BLP content" ([16]), so after battling with that odd to filter to restore the missing text, I then added a {{ref improve}} maintenance tag to the page ([17]) to ensure all readers knew it needed work. Within seven minutes, the incompletely censored version was restored by Kww ([18]) I re-added the incompletely censored material and set about referencing it. As quickly as I was adding references ([19]), Kww was deleting sections ([20]). I warned him ([21]) and asked him to spend his time adding refs rather than removing material. I asked him then why he was deleting information I was trying (and he knew I was trying) to reference ([22]). I told him I was going to continue to add refs ([23]) and yet he continued to revert me, finally blocking me ([24]) after a warning, for 36 hours. It is regretful that Kww claimed I was blocked for "intentional violation of WP:BURDEN" when I had made it abundantly clear that I was determined to reference the items in question, if he didn't keep racing to delete them.

Anyway, post his block of me, I did not edit for more than 36 hours ([25])], should the community have decided that this was the right thing for Kww to have done. Ironically, the the censorship applied to this and the Jackman list maintained perceived BLP violations, to that extent Kww falls foul of his own BLP transgressions. I regret the edit warring, but I was disappointed that Kww wouldn't let me improve Wikipedia (I'm pretty keen on referencing articles, as those who are aware of my work and standards will testify) and I was then disappointed that Kww blocked me to keep his preferred version of each page intact, despite me making numerous pledges that I would reference the "contentious" material he kept incompletely removing. I have since put myself up at WP:ANI for sysop recall ([26]), and although I have pretty much maintained a clear delineation between editing as an editor and editing as an administrator, it's clear from the feedback there that I need to do better with communication, which I have already pledged to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

Statement by uninvolved Dennis Brown

Writ Keeper has summed it up fairly well, do I won't rehash it. What is disturbing is the lack of accountability and unwillingness to consider the possibility of being WP:INVOLVED here. Kww has come under the microscope before, and by insisting on digging in each time, removes any hope that he can learn from his mistakes. In this instance, it is overzealousness in enforcing BLP to the point of using poor judgement and lumping all edits to BLPs together, whether they are minor, easily sourced, or blatant negative hate mongering. The role of admin should be to differentiate and react according to the actual threat to Wikipedia, else we could just get bots to block people. In this instance, it has already caused a questionable block, for TRM to file a recall petition on himself, and has caused a tremendous amount of drama across ANI. As this is arguably a misuse or abuse of tools and bad judgement on the part of Kww (including the filter), I ask that Arb review, for there is no other venue that can do so. TRM is not blameless here, but his transgressions could have been / can easily be handled at ANI as they didn't involve using the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by peripherally involved Jusdafax

I strongly urge ArbCom to accept this case. As my statement the linked AN/I thread above states, I have felt Kww's temperment unsuited for extra buttons since before he became an admin, and I trust ArbCom will take this case and duly desysop him. TRM is a bit more subtle, and as a regular at WP:ITN I have observed him with growing concern for years. The day before this edit war incident I asked him to stay off my Talk page, as it appeared to me he was looking for a fight. I feel strongly that this case should take a deep look at TRM's long-term abusive rhetorical tactics, which backed by the power inherent in adminship are intimidating, uncollegial, and a detriment to the encyclopedia. In short, he's a classic big bully who is often in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Again, I urge ArbCom to take this case, and may justice be done. Jus da fax 16:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Questions from SNUGGUMS

I've seen Kww around for a while removing unsourced/poorly sourced content from articles, including various "List of awards and nominations received by ______" pages. All my previous interactions with him have been just fine. He's also quite good at detecting sock puppets of blocked users. While BLP might not always be an applicable rationale, and I haven't really followed his edits over the past month, I do commend his intent to keep pages reliably sourced. Here's what I'm not sure of: is this Kww's first time going against WP:INVOLVED? Prior to this incident, what administrative actions of his (if any) have been questionable since he became in admin back in April 2010?? Same question for The Rambling Man aside from WP:INVOLVED (since he didn't go against that in this case) and the fact that he became an admin in May 2007. I'm less familiar with The Rambling Man, and haven't really interacted with him, but do know he's done lots of work with FL's, FA's, and GA's. It's a shame that two experienced admins have gotten into this. In any event, we should definitely hear from both admins before accepting or declining this request for arbitration. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rschen7754

Not sure how this will relate to this case, but Kww was admonished by ArbCom in early 2014. TRM was admonished by ArbCom in 2009. I don't think that I have more to add that hasn't/won't be said by other editors. --Rs chen 7754 17:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

In addition to what has been mentioned, Kww's conduct in dealing with the Best known for IP has been contentious. This includes controversial use of WP:RD5 (eg: [27], [28], [29]) which some admins have deemed inappropriate (eg: Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP#A few thoughts) This may be useful to include in the case. I personally did not feel Kww's conduct should have risen to the level of starting a case, but we are where we are. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

An aspect of this case which should not be overlooked if it is taken up by the Committee - as I believe it should be -- is whether "abuse of admin tools" is the only criteria by which admins can be sanctioned, an opinion that appears to be held by a significant portion of the community, judging by various discussions on the noticeboards. If this were the case, then the "Administrator conduct" section of WP:Administrators, which says:

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.

would be reduced to meaningless boilerplate. It is my belief that this requirement, for "respectful [and] civil" behavior, is just as important for administrators to follow as is proper use of the tools, and would hope that the Committee would verify and underline that proposition if the case is accepted. BMK (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: I have absolutely no doubt that what you say is true, but the word seems to have not filtered down to the community very well, since a standard response to any complaint about the behavior of an admin is "show me where they abused their tools". I'd point out current examples of the genre, but I have no desire to be unnecessarily provocative. So, despite the precedent, I think it would still be a very good thing if ArbCom was to, once again, make it explicit that "behavior unbecoming of an admin", backed by evidence, of course, was a legitimate reason for sanctions to be applied. BMK (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IJBall

First, I would like to say that while I think Kww's use of a block in this case was uncalled for and unjustified, I think that overall Kww's Adminship has been a net positive for the project, and if ArbCom deems to take this case, I would hope they would look at other disciplinary actions besides just desysop'ing, as I don't think it's in this project's interest to desysop here, nor would it be justified in this particular case. Kww's greatest "sin" here is perhaps over-zealously "enforcing" Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines. There's no real "malfeasance" here... Aside from that, I would like to second Beyond My Ken's statement – there is an unfortunate prevailing opinion right now that Admins should only be disciplined for "abuse of the tools", and if that is the case, 1) it is completely unfortunate, and 2) it should be clarified in the policies as BMK suggests. And if this is not the case, and Admins are subject to disciplinary actions for "non-tool use" offenses, it would be very good if ArbCom would clarify that publicly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anthonyhcole

Kww lied to his fellow editors about a non-existent consensus "in the archives" in order to keep his preferred title at Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Diff. I don't trust him with WP:BLPs: He collaborated with another admin to make and keep that article a nasty insult to the victim's mother. Example. Check out his grasp of WP:BLP as demonstrated by his commentary on the redacted text in this BLPN thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Updated 10:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Kww: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/0/0/4>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

I'd like to hear the statements from Kww and The Rambling Man before passing comment on this request. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to hear from both administrators prior to making a decision on acceptance. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the ANI, which has extensive commentary from Kww -- but not from The Rambling Man. Inclined to accept, though. Courcelles (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, TRM has commented on ANI, though in an easily missed spot ten threads or so down from the main one. Courcelles (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken:, there have been some desysops for "conduct unbecoming" that did not necessarily involve active use of the admin tools. (Though I decline to list them, for hopefully obvious reasons.) The relevant principle has been passed many times. Courcelles (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for more statements. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re Kww. This was the quintessential involved block, Kww seems unrepentant and he has already been admonished once for his use of the admin tools. The result is rather straightforward, in my opinion: accept the request and pass a motion in lieu of a case, desysopping him.
Re TRM. I am not seeing anything, at the moment, warranting our intervention. If evidence is provided showing a pattern of misconduct, I am open to changing my mind, but, for the moment, my vote is to decline doing anything wrt him. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 327: / Line 327: @@
 Incidentally, as a procedural matter I think that the bulk of the issues presented can be addressed by motion without requiring a full case.  The ArbCom can re-affirm its provisions regarding the application of discretionary sanctions (especially that ''overturning'' an enforcement action requires a clear, active, and substantial consensus of uninvolved admins, and that enforcement isn't paralyzed or defeated by a deadlocked noticeboard thread) and remind the admin corps that appeals are to be directed to the ArbCom.  Depending on Reaper Eternal's response to these proceedings, his situation can be dealt with by admonishment, restriction, or desysopping, again by motion. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 12:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
+=== Statement by B ===
+{{ping|GorillaWarfare}} You said, "Whether the closure of a discussion at AE constitutes an 'admin action' should certainly be clarified."
+No, there is nothing that needs to be clarified.  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=349939789#2._ArbCom_Enforcement_Motion The policy] says, "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy ... ."
+It does not say ''"admin action"'' - it says ''"any action"'' and, "any action" means "any action", not "any block".  Believing that the wrong decision was made does not give you the authority to overturn the close. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|talk]]) 13:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 === Statement by {Non-party} ===